- From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 09:18:00 -0400
- To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org, www-rdf-comments-request@w3.org
The current (editor's draft) RDFS rules have a criterion for detecting inconsistency, to wit, the derivation of a triple called an 'XML clash'. _:nnn rdf:type rdfs:Literal . where the subject bnode _:nnn was introduced, and allocated to an ill-typed literal by, the lg generalization rule (formerly called rdf2). The derivation for this example is as follows: <http://example.org/prop> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#range> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral> . <http://example.org/foo> <http://example.org/prop> "<"^^<http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral> . <http://example.org/foo> <http://example.org/prop> _:1*. rule lg, with _:1* allocated to "<"^^<http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral>, which is ill-typed. (Jos, can your code keep track of this when the rule is applied and 'mark' the bnode accordingly?) _:1* <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral> . rule rdfs3 <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#subClassOf> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Literal> . RDFS axiomatic triple _:1* <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Literal> . rule rdfs9 So the 'ex cont quod' could reasonably be restricted to this case, ie if you really believe an XML clash then you will believe anything. However, notice that the clash itself is not inconsistent: it is a symptom of the original set being inconsistent. So it would not be correct to say that the silly conclusion is entailed by the clash; rather, if you can derive a clash from a graph, then the silly conclusion is entailed by your original graph. >What a coincidence - while sitting in a plane this evening >I did't think to implement a "ex contradictione quodlibet". >The premise graphs are assumed to be the case unless they >can be proven to be inconsistent and then we just say so >and don't explicitly use them further. So we can't >run that testcase. I think it would be OK to be able to prove the antecedent inconsistent, and call that a proper run of the test-case. I think that was Peter's main point. Pat > > >-- >Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/ > > > > > Brian >McBride > <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com >To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" ><pfps@research.bell-labs.com> > > >cc: >www-rdf-comments@w3.org > Sent by: >Subject: entailment-from-inconsistent-graph >[was: proposed test of RDFS entailment > www-rdf-comments-req >rules] > >uest@w3.org > > > > > 2003-10-15 03:37 >PM > > > > > > > > > >Peter, > >The WG were unable to discuss this suggestion before publishing the 2nd >last call documents. I propose to track this as a 2nd last call comment: > >http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20031010-comments/#entailment-from-inconsistent-graph > > >Brian > > > > >Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >> I propose that the following be a positive entailment test in the RDF >test >> suite. This is a valid RDFS entailment (modulo typing errors), but is >not >> a consequence of the current RDFS entailment rules. >> >> Premise >> > > <http://example.org/prop> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#range> < >http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral> . >> <http://example.org/foo> <http://example.org/prop> "<"^^< >http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral> . > > >> Conclusion >> >> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> < >http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> < >http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> . >> >> >> Peter F. Patel-Schneider -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Saturday, 18 October 2003 09:16:35 UTC